ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

ESA and the National Flood Insurance Program

Implementing a salmon friendly program.

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

NFIP ESA HistoryBackground

2003 - NWF Sued FEMA for failure to comply with ESA

2004 – Court Ruled that FEMA must consult with NMFS

2006 - FEMA provided a Biological Evaluation that stated NFIP may affect but not adversely

September 2008 -NMFS issued Biological Opinion with Jeopardy/ Adverse Modification

NMFS offered one Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

A Reasonable and Prudent Alternative is an action(s) that a federal agency can take to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy. It must identify alternative actions that:

1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the NFIP,

2) Can be implemented consistent within the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,

3) Are economically and technologically feasible.

NMFS Biological Opinion

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Summary of Elements1. Notify Puget Sound communities of determination2. Change mapping procedures to reduce impacts3. Require communities to consider impacts on fish

habitat when issuing floodplain development permits

4. Changes to CRS program5. Addressing levee vegetation maintenance effects6. Mitigation to adversely affected habitat7. Report to NMFS on progress towards meeting

requirements

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

FPM Performance Criteria: Element 3

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

44 CFR 60.3 (a) (2) A community shall: Assure all necessary permits have

been received from State and Federal agencies from which approval is required by Fed/State law.

Requires a showing of compliance, particularly with CWA 404 permits, but includes ESA Section 10 permits.

FPM Performance Criteria: Element 3

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Permit by Permit Showing of

Compliance (project by project approach)

Checklist (community by community

approach)Model Ordinance (programmatic

approach)

FPM Performance Criteria: Element 3

1 2 3

Three Doors Approach

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Model Ordinance (programmatic approach) Combines Floodplain requirements

(Structural based) with Habitat requirements (species based) Written ESA inclusive, not salmon

specific More than minimally necessary

(avoid adverse effect vs. eliminate Jeopardy/Adverse Mod.) Not required, but highly encouraged

FPM Performance Criteria: Element 3

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Community Checklist (Semi -programmatic) Utilizes existing local/state

regulations adopted at the local level thus providing flexibility Meets the minimum

requirements of the Biological Opinion (may be salmon centric) Not required, but highly

encouraged

FPM Performance Criteria: Element 3

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Permit by Permit demonstration of compliance (individual approach) Requires demonstration of

compliance on project level basis Utilize Sections:

Section 7 consultation (fed nexus) Section 10 Permit (HCP) Section 4d approval (NMFS only)

Required, but not recommended

FPM Performance Criteria: Element 3

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Regardless of approach, all projects will require some level of assessment: Biological Assessment/

Biological Evaluation Habitat Conservation Plan

or Habitat Assessment Report

FPM Performance Criteria: Element 3

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation 5-step habitat assessment process 4-step mitigation guidance

Must evaluate for: direct impacts indirect impacts cumulative impacts

Regional Guidance

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Challenges There are a number of

challenges that exist to implementing the Bi-Op Fish Vs. Flood Limitations to what

NFIP can do (no land use authority)

FEMA must be successful through the actions of others

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Partnerships FEMA continues to pursue opportunities

to partner with other federal agencies, state agencies, local governments and other stakeholders to protect species and critical habitat

ESA and the NFIP Implementing a Salmon Friendly Program– FEMA Region 10

Conclusions FEMA feels that land use and flood control

practices that protect salmon and their critical habitat also means implementing good floodplain management that will ultimately reduce damages to flood